Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of DividendsSource: The Virginia Law Register, Vol. 14, No. 5 (Sep., 1908), p. 390Published by: Virginia Law ReviewStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1103767 .
Accessed: 16/05/2014 16:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Virginia Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Virginia LawRegister.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.129 on Fri, 16 May 2014 16:22:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
390 14 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [Sept.,
NOTES OF CASES.
Prior Action between Same Parties as Ground for Abatement.-In Van Vleck v. Anderson, 113 Northwestern Reporter, 853, the Su-
preme Court of Iowa holds that the general rule that, in order that one action may be abated through the pendency of a prior action, the parties must occupy the same position as plaintiffs and defend- ants has exceptions, which do not permit successive actions to be
brought to construe a will with the parties reversed.
Removal of Cause on Account of Diverse Citizenship.-A corpo- ration composed of a consolidation of various companies organized in
different states was held, by the United States Supreme Court in
Patch v. Wabash Ry. Co., 28 Supreme Court Reporter, 80, not enti- tled to remove a suit brought against it in a court of a state in which one of the constituent companies was incorporated, to a federal court. The fact that it was incorporated in other states than that in which
the suit was brought was held not to make it a nonresident.
Misstatement of Opinion cf Court by Newspaper as Contempt.-A newspaper published a misstatement of an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In contempt proceedings there-
for the paper alleged that the error was unintentional. The court held its good intentions afforded no excuse in view of the fact that its act in attempting to state the law was purely voluntary, but allowed it to
purge itself by publishing the opinion in the contempt case on its ed-
itorial page where the former article appeared. The decision is re-
ported as In re Providence Journal Co., 68 Atlantic Reporter, 428.
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends.-In an action against a corporation to recover moneys wrongfully paid to
stockholders out of the capital as dividends, a plea that a committee
appointed to investigate the matter reported such action unnecessary, and that at a meeting of the stockholders the majority voted against such action, was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey, in the case of Seigman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 65 Atlantic Re-
porter, 910, to state no defense. The court said that the violation of
the New Jersey statutes on this subject affected not only the rights of the stockholders, but also those of the creditors, and that, even if it
could be sanctioned by unanimous vote, this could not take away the
right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets.
Change of Statute of Limitations.-The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 Northeastern Re-
porter, 402, held that a change by the Legislature of the statute of limitations from six years to two, allowing 30 days in which to bring
390 14 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [Sept.,
NOTES OF CASES.
Prior Action between Same Parties as Ground for Abatement.-In Van Vleck v. Anderson, 113 Northwestern Reporter, 853, the Su-
preme Court of Iowa holds that the general rule that, in order that one action may be abated through the pendency of a prior action, the parties must occupy the same position as plaintiffs and defend- ants has exceptions, which do not permit successive actions to be
brought to construe a will with the parties reversed.
Removal of Cause on Account of Diverse Citizenship.-A corpo- ration composed of a consolidation of various companies organized in
different states was held, by the United States Supreme Court in
Patch v. Wabash Ry. Co., 28 Supreme Court Reporter, 80, not enti- tled to remove a suit brought against it in a court of a state in which one of the constituent companies was incorporated, to a federal court. The fact that it was incorporated in other states than that in which
the suit was brought was held not to make it a nonresident.
Misstatement of Opinion cf Court by Newspaper as Contempt.-A newspaper published a misstatement of an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In contempt proceedings there-
for the paper alleged that the error was unintentional. The court held its good intentions afforded no excuse in view of the fact that its act in attempting to state the law was purely voluntary, but allowed it to
purge itself by publishing the opinion in the contempt case on its ed-
itorial page where the former article appeared. The decision is re-
ported as In re Providence Journal Co., 68 Atlantic Reporter, 428.
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends.-In an action against a corporation to recover moneys wrongfully paid to
stockholders out of the capital as dividends, a plea that a committee
appointed to investigate the matter reported such action unnecessary, and that at a meeting of the stockholders the majority voted against such action, was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey, in the case of Seigman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 65 Atlantic Re-
porter, 910, to state no defense. The court said that the violation of
the New Jersey statutes on this subject affected not only the rights of the stockholders, but also those of the creditors, and that, even if it
could be sanctioned by unanimous vote, this could not take away the
right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets.
Change of Statute of Limitations.-The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 Northeastern Re-
porter, 402, held that a change by the Legislature of the statute of limitations from six years to two, allowing 30 days in which to bring
390 14 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [Sept.,
NOTES OF CASES.
Prior Action between Same Parties as Ground for Abatement.-In Van Vleck v. Anderson, 113 Northwestern Reporter, 853, the Su-
preme Court of Iowa holds that the general rule that, in order that one action may be abated through the pendency of a prior action, the parties must occupy the same position as plaintiffs and defend- ants has exceptions, which do not permit successive actions to be
brought to construe a will with the parties reversed.
Removal of Cause on Account of Diverse Citizenship.-A corpo- ration composed of a consolidation of various companies organized in
different states was held, by the United States Supreme Court in
Patch v. Wabash Ry. Co., 28 Supreme Court Reporter, 80, not enti- tled to remove a suit brought against it in a court of a state in which one of the constituent companies was incorporated, to a federal court. The fact that it was incorporated in other states than that in which
the suit was brought was held not to make it a nonresident.
Misstatement of Opinion cf Court by Newspaper as Contempt.-A newspaper published a misstatement of an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In contempt proceedings there-
for the paper alleged that the error was unintentional. The court held its good intentions afforded no excuse in view of the fact that its act in attempting to state the law was purely voluntary, but allowed it to
purge itself by publishing the opinion in the contempt case on its ed-
itorial page where the former article appeared. The decision is re-
ported as In re Providence Journal Co., 68 Atlantic Reporter, 428.
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends.-In an action against a corporation to recover moneys wrongfully paid to
stockholders out of the capital as dividends, a plea that a committee
appointed to investigate the matter reported such action unnecessary, and that at a meeting of the stockholders the majority voted against such action, was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey, in the case of Seigman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 65 Atlantic Re-
porter, 910, to state no defense. The court said that the violation of
the New Jersey statutes on this subject affected not only the rights of the stockholders, but also those of the creditors, and that, even if it
could be sanctioned by unanimous vote, this could not take away the
right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets.
Change of Statute of Limitations.-The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 Northeastern Re-
porter, 402, held that a change by the Legislature of the statute of limitations from six years to two, allowing 30 days in which to bring
390 14 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [Sept.,
NOTES OF CASES.
Prior Action between Same Parties as Ground for Abatement.-In Van Vleck v. Anderson, 113 Northwestern Reporter, 853, the Su-
preme Court of Iowa holds that the general rule that, in order that one action may be abated through the pendency of a prior action, the parties must occupy the same position as plaintiffs and defend- ants has exceptions, which do not permit successive actions to be
brought to construe a will with the parties reversed.
Removal of Cause on Account of Diverse Citizenship.-A corpo- ration composed of a consolidation of various companies organized in
different states was held, by the United States Supreme Court in
Patch v. Wabash Ry. Co., 28 Supreme Court Reporter, 80, not enti- tled to remove a suit brought against it in a court of a state in which one of the constituent companies was incorporated, to a federal court. The fact that it was incorporated in other states than that in which
the suit was brought was held not to make it a nonresident.
Misstatement of Opinion cf Court by Newspaper as Contempt.-A newspaper published a misstatement of an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In contempt proceedings there-
for the paper alleged that the error was unintentional. The court held its good intentions afforded no excuse in view of the fact that its act in attempting to state the law was purely voluntary, but allowed it to
purge itself by publishing the opinion in the contempt case on its ed-
itorial page where the former article appeared. The decision is re-
ported as In re Providence Journal Co., 68 Atlantic Reporter, 428.
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends.-In an action against a corporation to recover moneys wrongfully paid to
stockholders out of the capital as dividends, a plea that a committee
appointed to investigate the matter reported such action unnecessary, and that at a meeting of the stockholders the majority voted against such action, was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey, in the case of Seigman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 65 Atlantic Re-
porter, 910, to state no defense. The court said that the violation of
the New Jersey statutes on this subject affected not only the rights of the stockholders, but also those of the creditors, and that, even if it
could be sanctioned by unanimous vote, this could not take away the
right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets.
Change of Statute of Limitations.-The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 Northeastern Re-
porter, 402, held that a change by the Legislature of the statute of limitations from six years to two, allowing 30 days in which to bring
390 14 VIRGINIA LAW REGISTER. [Sept.,
NOTES OF CASES.
Prior Action between Same Parties as Ground for Abatement.-In Van Vleck v. Anderson, 113 Northwestern Reporter, 853, the Su-
preme Court of Iowa holds that the general rule that, in order that one action may be abated through the pendency of a prior action, the parties must occupy the same position as plaintiffs and defend- ants has exceptions, which do not permit successive actions to be
brought to construe a will with the parties reversed.
Removal of Cause on Account of Diverse Citizenship.-A corpo- ration composed of a consolidation of various companies organized in
different states was held, by the United States Supreme Court in
Patch v. Wabash Ry. Co., 28 Supreme Court Reporter, 80, not enti- tled to remove a suit brought against it in a court of a state in which one of the constituent companies was incorporated, to a federal court. The fact that it was incorporated in other states than that in which
the suit was brought was held not to make it a nonresident.
Misstatement of Opinion cf Court by Newspaper as Contempt.-A newspaper published a misstatement of an opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In contempt proceedings there-
for the paper alleged that the error was unintentional. The court held its good intentions afforded no excuse in view of the fact that its act in attempting to state the law was purely voluntary, but allowed it to
purge itself by publishing the opinion in the contempt case on its ed-
itorial page where the former article appeared. The decision is re-
ported as In re Providence Journal Co., 68 Atlantic Reporter, 428.
Liability of Directors for Wrongful Payment of Dividends.-In an action against a corporation to recover moneys wrongfully paid to
stockholders out of the capital as dividends, a plea that a committee
appointed to investigate the matter reported such action unnecessary, and that at a meeting of the stockholders the majority voted against such action, was held, by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New
Jersey, in the case of Seigman v. Electric Vehicle Co., 65 Atlantic Re-
porter, 910, to state no defense. The court said that the violation of
the New Jersey statutes on this subject affected not only the rights of the stockholders, but also those of the creditors, and that, even if it
could be sanctioned by unanimous vote, this could not take away the
right of the public to be not misled as to the actual corporate assets.
Change of Statute of Limitations.-The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, in Mulvey v. City of Boston, 83 Northeastern Re-
porter, 402, held that a change by the Legislature of the statute of limitations from six years to two, allowing 30 days in which to bring
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.129 on Fri, 16 May 2014 16:22:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
